Looking forward to seeing this National Geographic program This open frank discussion is long overdue given the changes taking place in America ” That transformational change, she reflects in a written statement on the project, “can be dizzying and scary.” The project has proven “very interesting,” said the 60-year-old journalist, author, podcaster and Television Hall of Famer, who has hosted news shows for all three major networks, co-hosted the ‘Today’ show, and more recently served as ‘Yahoo!’ Global news anchor. Couric said that three diverse communities were chosen for the program on immigration issues - Storm Lake along with cities in Nebraska and Pennsylvania. The crew was scheduled to be in Storm Lake through Friday gathering opinions, and hoped to arrange for Couric to speak with students in a couple of classes at Storm Lake High School today. http://www.stormlakepilottribune.com/story/2448221.html
This is complete BS. I don't care what color you are as long as you want a smaller government and believe in personal freedom. The biggest worry is that third world immigrants tend to vote for communism. It is odd that people flee tyrannical governments and corruption, and immediately vote to make the government bigger, more powerful, and less accountable. Western values = freedom. I don't care what your religion or skin color is, as long as you support individual freedom.
just like we fled a theocracy and some on the right want to turn us into one again I suppose I am all for smaller government, government should be there for us when we need help, not forcing their help on us when we do not want it, the war on drugs would be a good example of big government, the patriot act and faith based initiatives another
Granny says, "Dat's right - she ain't `fraid of `em - she just don't trust black folks... FBI Warns Of More Violence From ‘Black Identity Extremist’ Groups 10/06/2017 - The FBI Counterterrorism Division warned about the potential violence that could come from members of “Black Identity Extremists” (BIE), according to a document obtained by Foreign Policy.
Why wouldn't whites have anxiety when they're witnessing the real time destruction of the best civilization in human history by hostile non-white races? Not only is white Western civilization threatened, but the very culture and genetic source code required to produce any great future civilization will also forever be lost by the erosion of Western values and blending out of European genetics.
Europeans do not have any sort of "civilization building genes" that make them culturally superior. You have no evidence for that. You are simply promoting racism and applying the concept of dysgenics to humans groups in order to justify your racist claim that people who aren't White are bringing down Western Civilization. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that this is true. Pseudoscience A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. For example, astronomy is a science, but astrology is generally viewed as a pseudoscience. PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis— usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible— and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Notice how often, when you are asked by a friend about what should be a question of fact if the topic were not pseudoscience, the opening phrase is, “Do you believe in ESP?” (or flying saucers, or prophecy, or Bigfoot)... not, is the evidence good, but rather, do you believe, without raising dull questions of evidence. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what’s actually going on, or to test various possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to “congenial conclusions,” grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. Not just Creationists, but 20th Century pseudoscientists of all flavors, from J. B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky to Rupert Sheldrake, have underlying their claims and assertions an anachronistic world-view that essentially rejects all or most of the tested, reliable findings of science as “unacceptably materialistic!” The general public tends to view pseudoscientists as “mavericks” who are working slightly beyond the “accepted” boundaries of science. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Pseudoscientists invariably represent a world-view which is not simply unscientific or pre-scientific, but rather militantly antiscientific. - Rory Coker Phd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races.[170][171]
How's your primary source finding equivalent black, white and northeast Asian brain volume coming along? Why hasn't the racial adult IQ gap appreciably closed in 100 years?
There are no racial hierarchies in brain size. Variation in brain size does not determine intelligence for fully developed, healthy brains within species. The Black-White IQ gap in America has closed by around 4-7 IQ points (about 0.33 SD) in studies on grade school children. IQ gains decline with age which could be explained by the worsening of the learning environment in later age that is worse for Blacks than it is Whites. You have been shown this information before in previous discussions but have failed to refute the argument.
So which primary study can you cite showing negros having the brain volume as whites? Why do you word your response differently from the question i asked? I didn't ask if you believe there are racial hierarchies in brain volume, i asked what study shows negros having the same brain volume as whites. False. Brain volume/iq studies show a 0.35 correlation between brain volume qnd IQ. Prove your statement and show how every brain volume study on IQ is wrong. So you're inventing reasons to fit your narrative? We both agree, it seems, that adult negro IQ has not appreciably risen compared to whites in 100 years.
I didn't claim there were studies that showed that Blacks and Whites had the same brain volume. You are asking me to find support for a claim I never made. I have stated is that there are no racial hierarchies in brain size or volume to begin with and supported that claim with sources. Correlation does not imply causation. A moderate correlation of 0.35 does not indicate that greater brain volume = higher intelligence. The development of the brain is environmentally sensitive which means that environmental factors such as nutrition affect brain size as well as mental function. The Lieberman study provides sources showing that brain size does not predict intelligence for siblings and controlling for environmental variables eliminates differences in birth weight and brain volume between groups. Sources: 1. Schoenemann, P. T., Budinger, T. F., Sarich, V. M. & Wang, W. S. (2000) Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97(9):4932 – 37 2. David RJ, Collins JW Jr. Differing birth weight among infants of U.S.-born blacks, African-born blacks, and U.S.-born whites. New England Journal of Medicine 1997;337:1209-14 On what scientific basis do you claim that human evolution has resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that impact intelligence? Provide sources for your claim. I provided you with research showing that racial gaps in IQ do close with environmental improvement. The status of adult IQ does not contradict my position on there being no scientific basis for claiming that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. You are the one who made this claim and I have shown that it is invalid and based on a pseudoscientific premise. Instead of asking leading questions to misdirect from the rebuttal to your argument you should simply respond to the research presented and defend your argument.
You are Both Misstating facts and Mischaracterizing your sources. ALL available evidence shows that there are brain size differences among races, and more recently, that Brain size and IQ are positively correlated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crani..._of_past_cranial_theories_in_the_20th_century J. Philippe Rushton, psychologist and author of the controversial work Race, Evolution and Behavior (1995), reanalyzed Gould's retabulation in 1989, and argued that Samuel Morton, in his 1839 book Crania Americana, had shown a pattern of decreasing brain size proceeding from East Asians, Europeans, and Africans. In his 1995 book Race, Evolution, and Behavior, he alleged an average endocranial volume of 1,364 cm3 for East Asians, 1,347 for white caucasians and 1,268 for black Africans. Other similar claims were previously made by Ho et al. (1980), who measured 1,261 brains at autopsy, and Beals et al. (1984), who measured approximately 20,000 skulls, finding the Same East Asian → European → African pattern.".. And there are NO data/studies that show Racial IQ is the same (or Inverted!), only a consistent difference Hierarchy over a century... and Hundreds of apologetics studies/opinions seeking to rationalize/partially chip away the Obvious/documented as anything but Race. But Nisbett/best case only gets a Fraction of the way there. (82 Black IQ). And the APA acknowledges that socioeconomic factors CANNOT account for Race differences in IQ. Leaving only the un-PC/unmentionable. And starting with Brain size, the genetic factors are now unfolding. Consistent of course. PS: And that's how one uses a citation. Not intentionally Burying/bludgeoning people under Multiple (5 !n one post) and wordy citations that include, ie, House Scientist Graves location/address/suite and room#, over 9 L!nes! Volume does not equal credibility. It's merely, and obviously, a self-conscious compensation mechanism. +
I've done no such thing. Unlike you or Rayznack I've actual spoken to several of my sources via email who confirm that I have interpreted their research correctly. The sources I cited above (Lieberman, 2001, Wicherts, 2010 and Graves, personal communication) all refuted Rushton's claims of racial hierarchies in brain size. Lieberman showed that Rushton misrepresented the findings of Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) who concluded that brain size varies between human populations primarily due to adaptation to different climate zones. Because brain size varies within geographic populations and some geographic populations exhibit the full range of variation in brain size Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) concluded that there is no scientific basis for claiming that differences in brain size cause differences in intelligence between human races. Wicherts (2010) showed that Rushton's reported racial differences in brain size are too small to explain a significant percentage of the Black-White IQ gap. He also noted that Rushton's cranial capacity and brain size measurements were based on outdated methods including external head measurement and postmortem cranial measurement. Additionally brain weight at autopsy can not be reliably compared between populations which was addressed by Lieberman in his paper citing control variables utilized by Tobias (1970) which most of Rushton's studies did not address. In a followup study Ho and his colleagues found that when controlling for variables of newborn infants over a 10 year period there was no differences in brain weight between Whites and Blacks (Ho et al. 1981). Michael Weisberg analyzed the criticisms of Gould by Lewis et al. (2011) and found that Gould's criticism of Morton's research was valid (Weisberg, 2014). Morton made a sampling error that conformed to his racial bias. Furthermore Weisberg noted that there was greater variation in cranial capacity between some of the sub-populations within Morton's racial groups than between the racial groups. Additional analysis of Morton's research and Gould's criticisms by other scholars have shown that there is no scientific basis for the claim that Morton's work could show racial hierachies in brain size that impact intelligence which would support work like that of Rushton (Kaplan et al. 2015). Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior has received a lot of criticism and been dismissed by several scholars in relevant fields as pseudoscience. Joseph Graves in particular refuted Rushton's evolutionary arguments point by point which Rushton relies on for his claim that human evolution resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that influence mental characteristics (Graves, 2002). In addition to showing the flaws in his evolutionary arguments Graves also cited an example of how Rushton misrepresents research, including on brain size, to support his discredited theory. I asked another evolutionary biologist named David Reznick, who is a colleague of Graves but had never heard of Rushton before I mentioned him to review Graves' article and a paper written by Rushton which outlined his argument that humans evolved a long the r/K continuum to exhibit racial differences in intelligence. A lot of this research was discussed in other threads but I will repost the Reznick email for interested readers to look at: Reznick notes on Rushton - Placing intelligence into an evolutionary framework or how g fits into the r–K matrix of life-history traits including longevity Intelligence 32 (2004) 321–328 There is simply no scientific basis to Rushton's claim that human evolution resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that impact intelligence. Many studies by experts qualified to speak on the subject suggest otherwise. This is a strawman given that environmental inequality between groups would predict differences in average IQ between groups. There is plenty of evidence that indicates an environmental interpretation including studies that eliminate or significantly reduce IQ gaps when environmental variables are controlled. Socioeconomic factors are not the only environmental variables and the APA also said that available research did not support a genetic hypothesis for the cause of racial IQ gaps. This was mentioned to you in my other thread. Many genes influence brain size. None have been found that would validate the claim of genes related to intelligence being unevenly differentiated between human populations or races. Graves (2013) specifically refutes this claim. The racial hereditarian position is based on the fallacious argument that if they can control enough environmental variables and still show that a racial IQ gap exists they can show that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. You can't control for the environment between demographic groups living in racial stratified societies. This has been repeated over and over by experts on evolutionary genetics but racists rehash the same argument over and over because they are advocates of a racist agenda which doesn't value science. All of the arguments on brain size, IQ genes, heritability, testosterone, aggression genes, Life History Variables, statistics etc. are based on misinterpretations of research aimed at justifying a racial ideological agenda.
I don't believe i stated otherwise; i am simplifying the debate with ej due to his smoke and mirrors style of argument. I think it was pretty obvious i doubt ej's claims re: race, but his dishonest tactics require i ask specific questions.
<Rule 2/3/5> We are talking IQ differences between blacks, whites and northeast Asians. Do you agree the available evidence shows northeast asians and whites having larger brain volume than blacks? Strawman. Why are you changing the subject? So how do you go from claiming correlation does not imply causation to claiming brain volume does not have causal relationship with IQ? <Rule 2/3/5> So what? It's also influenced by genetics. <Mod Edit> Then Lieberman cherry-picked his data like nisbett. <Mod Edit> Any reason you or Lieberman cherry-pick sources? But i thought the claim was that there aren't skull size differences between white and black neonates? Pick one. <Rule 2/3/5> I've repeatedly limited this discussion to blacks, whites and northeast Asians. What do the studies show? As far as correlation between brain volume and racial hierarchy, the beal study you like to occasionally cite found low correlation between race and brain volume. Low correlation is not 0 correlation. <Mod Edit> <Mod Edit>
When I said "Both " i was saying ejay (Not you) "Both MisrepresentedAND misstated." The "both" doesn't refer to "Both of you". , but both of his sins. False. No one "refuted" anything. You abuse/utterly Misunderstand this word more, and worse, than any other. You think any contrary opinion is "rebuttal". Incredible and numbing. None of your sources "refute" the Brain size Hierarchy, nor Brain size and IQ Correlation. They Whine about technique and seek to Minimize that correlation, even while acknowledging it. Thus you absolutely did "misstate and "mischaracterize".. and do so again now/daily. Graves doesn't "refute," he "Disagrees," and characterizes/cheap-shots others research. He has done no Brain size or IQ studies of his own And dat will never happen, since he doesn't have the skill, and he don't really want the results! Real data would put him outa business. The Al Sharpton of genetics. As usual, without Empty Rushton-bashing, you got no game. And in 2006 the APA was right. There was YET no genetic underpinning save the miraculous and consistent data of 100 years under many conditons. Many designed to take out other variables. (ie, purely symbolic/non-lingual tests).. Of course, now we Are getting the first Genetic data, and it will come in cascades in the next 5-10 years or so. So far, so good. No contradiction to the tons of confirmatory Data. Again, your sources do Not "refute", they critique and Minimize the claims. You Misstated and Mischaracterized what YOU posted as response. There is/Remains a Brain size Hierarchy, and there is a Brain size/IQ Correlation. You and your sources can whine and Minimize all you like, just don't continually misrepresent. +
PSEUDOSCIENCE shows a total indifference to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments— instead, it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories, faked footprints, blurry photos, and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine modern scientific literature is not cited. Real research is never done. Generally pseudoscientists never present any valid evidence of any kind whatsoever for their claims. One of the most bizarre recent tactics of pseudoscientists is to publish a novel, a work of fiction in which essentially everything is made up by the author— as usual in works of fiction!— but then to turn directly around and treat the completely made-up material as if it were actual, factual and researched. Recent examples of this tactic are The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield (1994), and The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (2003). This is really having your cake and eating it too, because the authors, when taken to task for gross errors and mis-statements, calmly say, “Can't you read? It's fiction, not non-fiction,” and yet when not taken to task for equally gross errors, sneakily treat them as established facts and build upon them to generate yet more best-selling books. - Rory Coker Phd Your denial of the fact that Rushton's arguments were refuted is meaningless. Every single source that you cited in favor of racial hierarchies in brain size was addressed and refuted point by point. You have no rebuttal. Graves is an expert on evolutionary biology and Life History Theory. Rushton's claim was that humans evolved a long the r-K continuum to develop racial differences in brain size that cause differences in intelligence. Graves showed that this argument was invalid due to Rushton's improper use of Life History theory and misrepresentation of available data. Not only did Graves present this research personally to Rushton he wrote articles showing that his argument was wrong in detail. I also had another expert look at Graves and Rushton's papers and provide feedback. Reznick supported Graves' paper and showed why Rushton was wrong in his email response and in notes provided in a PDF file which you can download and read for yourself. Dismissing this research under these circumstances is intellectually dishonest. This rebuttal was also summarized in a book by a Biological Anthropologist. Graves does not need to do brain size or IQ studies to refute the evolutionary argument of Rushton. That is a strawman. I presented several studies on brain size and IQ that directly address your sources so if you think you are capable of addressing them go ahead and do it. The APA statement was in 1996. There isn't a scientific basis for claiming there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and there isn't one now. Nisbett's article in 2012 is a follow up paper that has been supported by the APA which addresses genetic research. Graves actually looked at genome-wide association studies that analyze genes related to intelligence which shows that they do not have a racial association. So even with advances in genetic/genomic research we are finding that the genetic hypothesis is still invalid. They critique and refute the claim. Refute 1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. You can deny it all you want. Graves is an expert on the subject whose position has been backed by other experts. My other sources directly address all of the ones you cited for your argument and show that they are wrong or in the case of studies like Beals et al. (1984) you and Rushton simply misinterpreted the findings. Your argument is wrong. Period. There is no reason to take you seriously. You are an anonymous nobody on the internet arguing against positions taken by respected scholars and supported with legitimate research. Modern science has dismissed your position as pseudoscientific, racist garbage. This trash is not being taught in high school or college textbooks nor is it a hot news topic nor are there any documentaries or recent TV series that entertain these discredited, racist theories. You can say what you want on the internet however the real world is not buying in to your pseudoscientific, racist claims.
No; just no. You already claimed moderate positive correlation does not indicate higher IQ. Do you agree this is what you said? Do you agree studies show whites having larger brain volume than whites? How did you conclude brain volume does not partly explain the racial IQ gap? How do you conclude brain volume is not causative for IQ? Cherrypicking sources is a dishonest tactic in which you selectively cite evidence fitting your narrative at the expense of evidence which doesn't. Why don't you mention the current consensus of intra-family IQ /head size studies show head size correlating with IQ? This was pointed out to you several times previously. What evidence of environment do you have to explain black IQ regressing in adulthood?
I'm done answering questions until you present a primary source or sources for your claim that Europeans possess special genes to create advanced civilizations which people who aren't White can not produce. Provide a source for your position that human evolution has resulted in racial differences in brain size that cause differences in intelligence. You're not going to dictate the debate with leading questions designed to distract from your inability to provide sources and nitpick at sources because you can not accept my position. I have provided more than enough evidence for my position and shown that your argument is based on racist pseudoscience. The reason why I'm not answering your questions is because I recognize your dishonest debate strategy. You will nitpick at this or that claim and say "this isn't good enough" then come up with 5 or 10 more questions and once those are answered even more and more until your opponent recognizes the futility of arguing with you because it is a waste of time. Your view is based on ideology not science. This sort of trolling behavior would get you banned on a lot of message boards and we all know how that played out for you the last time you did this on a science message board. So post sources that support your position.
Precisely And of course, You cannot debate AT ALL without Rushton/Graves. Even Wicherts Concedes Cranial volume differences, but minimizes it. And he and Nisbett concede/dispute Lynn's 70, with an African 82 IQ. You keep Misrepresenting even your Cherry-picked BS. The first hint was found in 2012. Your old links and same-source clownery are dated. But again Wicherts concedes but minimizes the possible differences in brain size and Race/IQ. More Genetic discovery will leave them and you in the dust. As Murray alludes, 'Copernican Astronomy' is at hand. It would be prudent to be cautious about claims of 'no genes/no differences' at this early stage of Genetics, because we already see the Obvious morphological effects on human populations/Races. Anyone really think that's all? Yawn. Graves claims No proof there and/but YES, "Critique" is the word. All my sources are valid, from Coyne, to Gill, to Gottfredson, etc, to actual new data that starts most of my OPs. You, OTOH cite 3-30 year old PC apologetics, (and 'Obama good prez'), and use juvenile and illogical argumentation. And you use the same/Identical Links in Every string, oft on Consecutive pages. You personally probably constitute 95% of the Joseph Graves citations/mentions on the internet! I have shown I know alot, and post alot, about Evolution with many additional sources, (see "Science" section. Hark!) while you post Rrrrrace/Rrrrrace only. MY old friend SJ Gould was a perfect example. I have cited him for 15 years, (evolution, punctuated equilibrium, etc) while you only knew 'Mismeasure,' because it fit your tunnel-vision/confirmation bias. You knew/know Nothing about Evolution, just the narrow Theology and bishops of Race-denial, with no background in evolution to contextualize/judge it fairly. ie, never having seen what constitutes subspecies in other life besides humans. And who is trying condescension? And since some are fudging definitions of 'Racism', here's a better and working one that makes more sense. 'Racist': 1. Someone who is Obsessed with Race, and posts nothing but net-wide, 1a. and on call 24/7 to do so. 2. Someone's whose interest in race matters is only/clearly for One race/His own. +
Yes, your arguments are based on pseudoscience. In a single thread I cited over 40 scholars. Your only argument against me is "well you cite Rushton/Graves" without displaying the ability to respond to my actual arguments. No, he doesn't concede anything. He entertains the idea e.g. "Even if Rushton were right here are the problems with his claim." Then he goes on to question the legitimacy of his measurements: "owever, we are not familiar with studies that used modern methods to measure brain size in both European Whites and Africans, and we are not familiar with any studies of the heritability of IQ and/or brain size among Africans. Although race differences in brain size are in line with Rushton’s hypothesis, his hypothesis fails to impress us." - Jelte Wicherts In reality you are the one who is misrepresenting sources. Wicherts clearly critiqued Lynn's IQ research and disputes his conclusions but in your mind because he reports an IQ average of 82, which is lower than 100 but almost one standard deviation above 70, this is somehow a concession. Of what? Black Africans having lower IQ than White Europeans? No one disputes that. But the cause is 100% environmental for the reasons my sources outlined. So your are attacking a strawman and then claiming some kind of victory which is extremely illogical. As for Nisbett on Lynn well he had this to say by email: "No one I ever deal with in the intelligence business takes Lynn seriously. He is certainly a very foolish man and many consider him to be dishonest." - Richard Nisbett Lynn's research is biased and shoddy which was the real point of Wichert's article. I have many sources some published in the last 5 years and I have sources from more than even the 40 scholars listed in that thread. You are simply out of your league and delusional if you think your sources are better than mine? How many people who support Scientific Racism agree with you that have not destroyed their reputation via accepting money or being involved with the Pioneer Fund? How many have had debates in academic settings on the subject? You simply don't have quality sources for your argument. Charles Murray is not a geneticist. He has no qualifications for studying the human genome. He actually declined to have a debate with Graves who challenged him to debate in an academic setting any time he's ready to. He wants to wait for some scientific discovery when the field of genomics research advances but it's never going to happen because the genetic hypothesis is based on a pseudoscientific premise. Graves wrote a full length paper on the subject which you have no hope of addressing. Go ahead and yawn all you like and call Graves names. That doesn't mean anything in a scientific debate. Critique and refutation. You can deny it all you want. It means nothing. Coyne and Gill do not support Scientific Racism. In fact both disavow it. So your argument is limited to "oh well some scholars believe race exists." Yeah...believing race exists does not mean you are a racist quack trying to find a genetic basis for racist stereotypes. Gottfredson hasn't done any serious work on this subject nor has she presented her findings in an academic setting recently that I am aware of and certainly not in a debate. Your writing style and approach to debate is juvenile and illogical. Whining about me citing Graves among dozens of scholars means absolutely nothing in a scientific debate. You haven't shown me anything noteworthy. Do you have a post history on science message boards that I can review? I mean aside from Scienceforum.net where you got my thread shut down for flaming opponents and Sciforum where you have ducked a debate with me after I entered a thread you linked me to where you were promoting Scientific Racism. Unless you have a post history you're willing to share and review with multiple citations to Gould there is no reason to believe that. Plus it doesn't mean anything in this debate. If you were such an expert on Gould you would be able to respond to the Weisberg study. But you didn't because you can't. You don't know anything about my background in scientific knowledge or education beyond what I've shared with you. Did you pass biology in high school or college? Did you write any papers on the subject? Did you read any books on evolution? Did you discuss your research with any scholars? You by your own admission are limited to reading about science through internet links and given the vastness of the internet there is tons of free information, enough to let anyone with a computer become an armchair scientist pretending to be knowledgeable on subject they only have an elementary understanding of. Your internet hobby doesn't mean anything compared to being a professional scholar or at the very least having a degree of scientific literacy enough to discuss the subject with professional scholars. Go back to Sciforum or prove you can have a meaningful debate with me on another science message board if you think you know more. The list of scholars I have spoken to on the subject dwarfs yours (which unless you prove otherwise stands at zero). Or was can just cite the dictionary since anonymous people on the internet writing definitions is absolutely worthless to this discussion. Racism noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. There are different forms of racism and different degrees of racism. The first definition of racism is in line with Scientific Racism. There's also popular racism which is based on the same ideological believes but devoid of a scientific veneer e.g. "Derrr N-Words are stupid!" The second definition fits institutional racism such as Segregation, Apartheid Jim Crow Laws etc. In extreme cases of racial bigotry enforced by public policy you get genocide. The third definition is the simplest and most common where people don't need a rational for being racist. They just hate you just because they hate certain races. This hatred or intolerance can vary from not wanting certain racial groups in your neighborhood, to not wanting to be friends with them or date them because of race to hating them to the point where you regularly use racial slurs against them to wanting to seriously hurt them and talking about, plotting or acting on committing murder. Some people represent the full range while others are less overt with their racism. You're pretty much just an internet racist promoting Scientific Racism who I would assume is harmless and wouldn't dare confront a non-White person you despise in person but I've noticed that when people like you get angry they become increasingly hostile and prone to more hateful expressions of racist attitudes.
I never made that claim. I said that there is no scientific basis to the claim that human evolution has resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that cause differences in intelligence. I provided sources supporting my argument in post #10 and post #14 of this thread. If you are disputing my argument provide counter sources. So far you have not provided anything that has challenged my argument and the sources supporting it.
